CHAPTER 2 / Greek Myth as a Semiotic and Structural Sy stem and the Problem of Tragedy In the infancy of society every author is necessarily a poet because language itself is poetry ....Every original language near to its source is in itself the chaos of a cyclic poem: the copiousness of lexicography and the distinctions of grammar are the works of a later age, and are merely the catalogue and the fo rm of the creations of poetry. -Po B. Shelley, "A Defence of Poetry" The structuralist controversy of the seventies, as Marc-Eli Blanchard suggests, has gradually been replaced by a semiotic con­ troversy. 1 From the point of view of semiotics, culture depends on manipulating complex sign systems; and the activities of culture, in large part, consist of the continuous transformation and translation fr om one communicative system to another. Language obviously occupies a privileged place in the semiotics of culture, not only be­ cause of its unique communicative power but also because of its unique ability to reflect explicitly on the nature of the semiotic pro­ cess and the interrelation of the various semiotic networks that make up the totality of a given culture. At the same time semioticians have I thank Nancy Rubin fo r many helpful comments and suggestions. I gratefully acknowledge a fellowship fr om the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (I98I-82), during which this essay was put into final fo rm. I. Marc-Eli Blanchard, Description: Sign, Self, Desire. Critical Theory in the Wake of Semiotics (The Hague I98o). Greek Myth as a Semiotic and Structural System called attention to the fa ct-hard to acknowledge fo r those of us trained as philologists-that language does not have an exclusive monopoly on signification. The question of the relations between verbal and nonverbal sign systems becomes particularly interesting and important in the study of myth. As a fo rm of mythos, a spoken tale or account, myth is obviously inseparable fr om language, but it is, some would argue, at least partially independent of language or even transcends language.2 The study of myth is both important and difficult fo r semiotics because myth stands at an intersection of different sign systems. Myth comprises a system of symbols, verbal, visual, and religious. Each myth is built up of already existing symbols and fo rms and, like all narrative, reforms and reorganizes those symbols into its own structures. Myth, as Roland Barthes suggests, is a "second-order semiotic system," which creates its own language, its own system of relations between signifier andsignifi ed, fr om the primary significa­ tions of cultural values and narrative fo rms.3 At one level, myth provides a body of stories and symbols that validate cultural norms. A society's myths are the imaginative distillation of its descriptions and prescriptions about what life is and should be. We can easily think of Greek myths that warn about violating taboos or marrying within certain degrees of kinship or, more positively, set fo rth the ideal mode of behavior fo r husband or wife, son or daughter, old or young. Viewed with an eye to structure rather than content, myths fo rm a body of interrelated narratives that reveal an implicit system of log­ ical relations. These relations become particularly striking when a large body of myths is examined at once, as Claude Levi-Strauss has done fo r the Indians of the Amazon Basin. The totality of a corpus of myths may be read as a single text that possesses the internal co­ herence, autonomy, and coding processes of Barthes's second-order 2. See Albert Cook, Myth and Language (Bloomington, Ind. 1980), Introduction and chaps. 2 and I I. For the question of narrative discourse in myth and other fo rms of discourse see also J.-P. Vernant, My the et societe (Paris 1974) 214ff. 3. Roland Barthes, Mythologies, trans. A. Levers (London 1972) I 13ff. ; see also Terrence Hawkes, Structuralism and Semiotics (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1973) 13 Iff. Juri Lotman, The Structure of the Artistic Text, trans. R. Vroon, Michigan Slavic Contributions 7 (Ann Arbor 1977) 9ff. speaks of "secondary modeling systems," and see also his remarks on "recoding," 3 sff. 49 Greek Tragedy: Myth and Structure semiotic system. In reading the whole body of a society's myths in this way, we are constructing the "megatext" of its mythic material (I shall explain the term more fully later). This megatext is an ar­ tificial construct, necessarily invisible and unconscious to the society whose exemplary narratives and symbolic projections of what reality is are located within that system. The first section of this essay attempts to show how Greek myth may be described in terms of a megatext, or in other words how the inherent systematicity of Greek myth operates in specific texts and narratives. Section II fo cuses on tragedy as a special fo rm of mythical narration. Tragedy, I shall argue, simultaneously validates and disin­ tegrates the mythic system both as a fo rm of narrative representation and as a reflection of a coherent world order whose stable, hier­ archical interrelation of parts is encoded into the myths. Myth, though operating primarily through language, also shares common boundaries of content, fo rmal organization, and expression with the visual arts, ritual, music, and in ancient Greece architecture also, fo r the plastic expressions of the myths frequently occur on the friezes and metopes of temples and other sacred buildings. Because of this overlap, no single brief definition of myth can encompass all its many fu nctions and aspects. From a semiotic point of view, howev­ er, we may say that myth is a narrative structure whose sign- and symbol-systems are closely correlated with the central values of the culture, especially those values which express a supernatural valida­ tion, extension, or explanation of the cultural norms. Myth is also a more or less coherent system of symbols that express relationships between the human world and the fo rces of nature and the various fo rms of the unknown: the gods, the dead, the afterlife. Greek myth is especially interesting fr om a semiotic point of view fo r two reasons. First, the presentation of myth in Greek literature shows a high degree of what we may call the metaliterary or meta­ lingual consciousness. Even in Homer the poet is clearly conscious of shaping his work by structuring language and narrative elements. Within the mythic corpus the creative power of language, art, and poetry is itself often a subject of narrative: we may recall the per­ vasive details of weaving and crafting; the interest in the poet as an actor, a figurein the narrative (particularly in the Odyssey); the inclu­ sion of comprehensive symbolic artifacts, such as the Shield of 5 0 Greek Myth as a Semiotic and Structural System Achilles in the Iliad,4 and the frequent representation of the heroic warrior himself as a bard, whether literally or metaphorically or, as in the Odyssey, both simultaneously;5 and the magic of poet figureslike Orpheus, Musaeus, Amphion, and Zethus.6 A conscious awareness ofsign systems, fu rthermore, pervades ear­ ly classical myth in its literary expression. In Aeschylus, fo r example, the devices on the shields of the seven warriors who attack and defend Thebes, the attention to the beacons in the Agamemnon as a coded fo rm of communication apart fr om language,7 the concern with names and naming as in the fa mous ode on the name of Helen (Ag. 681-98), the interest in omens and prophecies, and in Sophocles and Euripides the puns on names such as Oedipus and Pentheus-all are indications of an advanced, if not explicit, semiotic consciousness.s At a later date this awareness ofthe signifying power oflanguage, or metalingual consciousness, receives theoretical fo rmulation in the work of some of the early Sophists, among them Protagoras, Pro­ dicus, and Gorgias, who are among the firstphi losophers oflanguage and literature in the West, and in their immediate successors, Cra­ tylus and Democritus. The latter, the most systematic of the fifth­ century materialistic philosophers, speculated on whether language existed by convention (nomos) or by nature (physis), that is, as a secondary invention or as an instinctive capacity of man. 9 This highly 4. See K. J. Atchity, Homer's Iliad: The Shield of Memory (Carbondale, Ill. I978). 5. E.g. Od. II.368 and 21.405ff. ; also II. 9. I 86ff. See Klaus Ruter, Odysseein­ terpretation, ed. K. Matthiessen, Hypomnemata 19 (Gottingen I969) 237ff.;C. Segal, "Kleos and Its Ironies in the Odyssey," AC 52 (I983) 22-47. 6. See C. Segal, "The Magic of Orpheus and the Ambiguities of Language, " Ramus 7 (1978) 106-42, especially Il4-21. 7. See J. J. Peradotto, "Cledonomancy in the Oresteia," AJP 90 (1969) 1-21, and "The Omen of the Eagles and the Ethos of Agamemnon," Phoenix 23 (1969) 237-63; Froma Zeitlin, "Language, Structure and the Son of Oedipus in Aeschylus' Seven aga inst Thebes," in Contemporary Literary Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Classical Texts, ed. Stephanus Kresic (Ottawa 1981) 235-52, and Under the Sign of the Shield: Semiotics and Aeschylus' Seven against Thebes (Rome 1982); Pierre Vidal-Naquet, "The Shields of the Heroes," in J.-P. Vernant and Vidal-Naquet, Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Greece, trans. Janet Lloyd (Brighton, Sussex 1981) I29ff. 8. See H. Van Looy, "rraQETu�oAOYEt 6 EVQlnL()ljC;,"in Zetesis, Festschrift fo r E. De Strijcker (Antwerp and Utrecht 1973) 345-66; C. Segal, "Etymologies and Dou­ ble Meanings in Euripides' Bacchae," GloUa 60 (1982) 81-93; J.